sew.excited73
Wendy-Anne - I am Dutch/British
No, they are, but weren’t during the Covid propaganda broadcasts.Are people not supposed to be informed?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No, they are, but weren’t during the Covid propaganda broadcasts.Are people not supposed to be informed?
I am so sorry to hear that, because I know it is very hard to find any doctors who will believe you when you say it comes from the jabs.Sew.excited here was my own personal experience with the Pfizer vaccines and 1 Pfizer booster.
The first two shots were totally non eventful, I mean I think my arm was a bit sore but other than that it was nothing. So since so much of my family was abroad, I went in for the third shot expecting more of the same, nothing. Instead of "nothing" I got a raging headache for four days afterward, and my blood pressure never has returned to it's low normal, though it is only about 130/80, so not high enough for meds. But immediately prior to the 3rd shot, my blood pressure was about 100/70 and that was "higher than normal" to me so I had a little wiggle room. I hate I got that third shot, I really do.
This looks as believable as the Chat GPT answer you posted the other day.The other day, we reported that eight of the 62 (not 68 as was originally reported) people who died in the recent ATR 72 turboprop plane crash in Sao Paulo, Brazil, were doctors headed to an important oncology conference. It has since come out that six of these eight were also scientists who planned to expose mRNA (modRNA) "vaccines" as a cause of turbo cancer.
Doctors killed in Brazilian plane crash promised to release evidence tying mRNA “vaccines” to TURBO CANCER – NaturalNews.com
The other day, we reported that eight of the 62 (not 68 as was originally reported) people who died in the recent ATR 72 turboprop plane crash in Sao Paulo, Brazil, were doctors headed to an important oncology conference. It has since come out that six of these eight were also scientists who...www.naturalnews.com
No, anyone with even mediocre observation skills can see that there is a link to the original paper below the text.you present this as if it were a quote from the report you linked.
Even the conspiracy freaks don't believe this one, because of fluent puppies.Dr. Mike Yeadon on Ivermectin
Dr. Mike Yeadon Ivermectin Anti-Fertility Bombshell: "One Of The Most Violent Fertility Toxins"
Renowned pharmacologist Dr. Mike Yeadon has dropped a massive Ivermectin bombshell, calling it “one of the most violent fertility toxins” he’s ever seen. His comments were recorded back in June 2024 brumble.com
Sorry everybody is still required to sign a consent form and you are more than welcome to follow up on your own but maybe you didn't read the form.FDA-CBER-2021-5683-0000054 = 2021, thus not years before 2020, I am afraid. So, there is just no way of knowing how this is going to affect people 3, 5, or 10 years later (yet). Why don’t people just not get that? Is it their confirmation bias after having taken the jabs, and not wanting to see any normal, simple, common sense anymore as that would mean admitting that they might have made a horrible mistake? It might not have been a mistake. Nothing bad might happen to anyone at all… but that is not the point! The point is, people were not warned about any possibility of risk at all and in case of mandates or other such schemes were even bullied into complying, rather than giving the choice on what they felt was best for themselves. These were not normal vaccines, that’s the point.
I personally feel that governments should not be allowed to make these decisions for us. It is down to each patient and their doctor to come to the best decision for that person. It’s their life to risk, not the government’s. The government doesn’t own us, they work for us.
Also, did anyone, in the government, or speaking as scientific advisor, during their public mainstream media ‘propaganda’ mention any of these risk written down?
Did your doctors, before they gave you the shot? Or did they just shove a piece of paper like this with all kinds of medical terms that no non-medical person would be expected to understand under their nose (probably after administration of the jab) and send them on their merry way.
I wish I could remember the threshold at which vaccines would normally be recalled when causing damage… I need to look that up again tomorrow as I wouldn’t want to state the wrong information, but 10 per 10,000 is basically 1 in 1000, and that seems to be very near or above that threshold for me, but I could be wrong, as I said will see if I can find that tomorrow, I need to sleep now. Goodnight everyone
We don't know because we don't have a time machine to tell us about the future details. Best we can do is look at the adverse effects that exist right now and act on that.FDA-CBER-2021-5683-0000054 = 2021, thus not years before 2020, I am afraid. So, there is just no way of knowing how this is going to affect people 3, 5, or 10 years later (yet). Why don’t people just not get that?
IMO it's about faith in government and the vanity that supports that faith.Is it their confirmation bias after having taken the jabs, and not wanting to see any normal, simple, common sense anymore as that would mean admitting that they might have made a horrible mistake?
I'd argue that they don't even meet the original definition of a vaccine. Informed consent of citizens is irrelevant when the state is acting according to security protocols as would be the case for an actual pandemic where there was a significant threat of harm. Of course the actual threat posed by the "pandemic" was hardly worse than the seasonal flu, with hospital staff taking up dancing and theatre instead of busying themselves with patients.The point is, people were not warned about any possibility of risk at all and in case of mandates or other such schemes were even bullied into complying, rather than giving the choice on what they felt was best for themselves. These were not normal vaccines, that’s the point.
Persons don't have any basis on which to challenge government policy. People, on the other hand, can asset natural rights and can make a case against government agents for their "safe and effective" fraud.I personally feel that governments should not be allowed to make these decisions for us. It is down to each patient and their doctor to come to the best decision for that person. It’s their life to risk, not the government’s. The government doesn’t own us, they work for us.
AFAIK they did not.Also, did anyone, in the government, or speaking as scientific advisor, during their public mainstream media ‘propaganda’ mention any of these risk written down?
Some doctors did not toe the line and were censured for that.Did your doctors, before they gave you the shot? Or did they just shove a piece of paper like this with all kinds of medical terms that no non-medical person would be expected to understand under their nose (probably after administration of the jab) and send them on their merry way.
and anyone with even rudimentary reading skills can see that what was in the second link is not from the actual reportNo, anyone with even mediocre observation skills can see that there is a link to the original paper below the text.
I did read the form, and I was better informed than most because I actually understood what it really meant. Most people didn't and just trusted the government wouldn't omit important information from them and that they knew 100% for sure for a fact that what they were telling people was the absolute 'unchangeable' factual truth, and thus they took the jabs.Sorry everybody is still required to sign a consent form and you are more than welcome to follow up on your own but maybe you didn't read the form.
Absolutely! Totally agree, noone has a time machine, not even the scientists, and that's exactly why they should have allowed people bodily autonomy to make the decisions best for them (with the help of their physician, if needed).We don't know because we don't have a time machine to tell us about the future details. Best we can do is look at the adverse effects that exist right now and act on that.
Absolutely, they changed the dictionary definitely basically, to gaslight the people into thinking this was a 'normal' vaccine. Noone ever explained clearly what mRNA meant, otherwise people would have understood it was still a very infantile/experimental treatment, rather than a normal vaccine. Still most people would have trusted the 'experts' and the government and decided to take it anyway (like I did), but they wouldn't have hit their 90%+ uptake, like they did now.I'd argue that they don't even meet the original definition of a vaccine.
The scientific method is ethically agnostic, but the behaviour of the priests of science is evident in the scientism of peer review, which leads to institutional bias in favour of those who pay for the associated work.
What?As clearly evidenced as they turned 'science' into a religion!
Predictably, your vapid response is entirely fact-free.You seriously don't know what you're talking about
I badly broke my right (dominant) elbow during the pandemic, requiring an elbow replacement. They had to completely staff an entire ward even though I was the only person on the ward because most replacements were considered optional surgery (but mine wasn't). I waited and waited and waited for ANYTHING. Don't let me ring that buzzer!I'd argue that they don't even meet the original definition of a vaccine. Informed consent of citizens is irrelevant when the state is acting according to security protocols as would be the case for an actual pandemic where there was a significant threat of harm. Of course the actual threat posed by the "pandemic" was hardly worse than the seasonal flu, with hospital staff taking up dancing and theatre instead of busying themselves with patients.
Changing a definition introduces ambiguity, and ambiguity is not interpreted in favour of the one who first uses ambiguous language (contra proferentem). Trust in government is central to the security relationship between the state and the citizen, so to unwrap this the nature of that relationship should be examined.Absolutely, they changed the dictionary definitely basically, to gaslight the people into thinking this was a 'normal' vaccine. Noone ever explained clearly what mRNA meant, otherwise people would have understood it was still a very infantile/experimental treatment, rather than a normal vaccine. Still most people would have trusted the 'experts' and the government and decided to take it anyway (like I did), but they wouldn't have hit their 90%+ uptake, like they did now.
For most people it worked out OK, but for those it didn't they must feel very deceived! (Especially for those who did sign an informed consent form, but weren't actually as informed as the had needed to be).
You are really grasping at straws here.Reports of Batch-Dependent Suspected Adverse Events of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine: Comparison of Results from Denmark and Sweden
Reports of Batch-Dependent Suspected Adverse Events of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine: Comparison of Results from Denmark and Sweden
Background and Objective: An unexpected batch-dependent safety signal for the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was recently identified in a nationwide study from Denmark, but the generalizability of this finding is unknown. Therefore, we compared batch-dependent rates of suspected adverse events...www.mdpi.com
It is painfully obvious that some people do not read their source material before presenting it...You are really grasping at straws here.
this is a report on one batch of covid 19 vaccine that produced an increased amount of suspected adverse reactions. In Sweden this patch produces a total of 28 suspected adverse reactions. Wow. all of the suspected adverse reactions were classes as mild. Mild reactions for injections are: Soreness at injection sight, headache, fatigue and muscle aches.
Worse the author's of the study say that what they found can't be connected to the vaccine and there is no indication that the vaccine even from this one batch was actually at fault. "we emphasize that our results are preliminary and hypothesis-generating, given the inherent limitations of spontaneous SAE reporting systems like the DKMA and SMPA. Notably, such passive reporting systems may capture < 15% of SAEs [22]. Also, the current data were incomplete and subject to variable quality information, and factors such as vaccine efficacy, pre-existing immunity and booster schedules, and clinical details and long-term effects of reported SAEs were not examined."